what about Yuna..? I think she can dominate under 6.0 system, like she did in COP, with her consistency, consistent 3-3, her jump's high quality
It's all somewhat inter-related.
I think it's important to note that some skaters under 6.0 were able to win even when they did not skate clean or even when someone else did harder jump content. Sometimes it was because the quality of the jumps they did complete was superior. But usually, they (also?) had superior skating skills and/or superior technical content and choreography between the jumps.
Kurt Browning, 1991-94, comes to mind as a good example.
So I think at least some judges were always rewarding some of the things that were invisible to casual observers, because they weren't explicit in the rules and commentators rarely mentioned them nearly as often as they talked about the jumps. Which led to occasional wuzrobbing when the skater who won the jump contest didn't win the event.
Now these qualities are explicitly written into the rules, which I think is great for the sport. There just needs to be continual improvement on the balance of what skills should be rewarded most highly and how good a job the judges are doing at rewarding them appropriately.
As a skating fan for whom transitions are way down the list of things to care about in a program/performance, I find it really annoying that so many fans fixate on TR as though this one component is important above and beyond all other aspects of a performance. For me it's the least interesting component - if transitions serve the program concept, the interpretation and the choreography, great; otherwise I can't say I really care. And I don't like seeing skaters dismissed as inferior based on a single criterion, whether it's the perception that they have inferior jumps, spins, or their supposed lack of difficult transitions.
Also, I don't believe that Joubert and Plushenko have enjoyed reputation scoring to a greater extent than, say, Chan and Lysacek. If the former are overscored on TR, I'd argue that the latter are/have been overscored in other areas.
I think gkelly is right that writing things into the rules is a good idea, but I'm not sure it's possible to turn skating judging into a fully objective exercise, nor do I feel that it should necessarily be a goal. Sometimes skating is more than the some of its parts, and rewarding that isn't really possible anymore, and that's one thing about 6.0 that I do miss; I think it's part of what made the very best 6.0 performances special. Maybe they could find a way to include it under P&E?
Skating skills: balance, flow, sureness, speed, direction.. Nothing to do with the TR to.
You are right again, Zemgirl
It could include all or most of the criteria currently listed under Performance/Execution. Any that should be taken out completely or moved to a different component?
It could also include criteria such as "Success of the technical elements" or "General impression of mastery" or something like "Unity and wholeness" (moved from the Choreography component).
I also wouldn't mind if Overall Impression and Skating Skills had larger factors than Transitions, Choreography, and Interpretation.
Another question I have about overlap between components:
Where should the (successful) use of counterrotated turns be taken into account?
It's impossible to earn higher than level 2 in a step sequence without including at least a couple of brackets, counters, rockers, and/or choctaws, so using more in the step sequence would be rewarded there.
Using these turns outside the step sequence or choreo sequence, either as entries or exits from jumps and spins or as edgework between elements or as means of turning between forward and backward stroking should be considered under Transitions as part of the difficulty and variety.
The fact that counters, rockers, and choctaws also change between clockwise and counterclockwise curves could be considered under the multidirectional skating criterion under Skating Skills. And ability to hold the exits of these turns (and also, I would argue, exits of backward three turns) on one foot and even moreso the ability to connect several such turns and other moves (e.g., loops, edge changes) in a row on the same foot should be rewarded in the mastery of one-foot skating criterion.
Does that seem like appropriate reward for demonstrating mastery of these advanced basic skills?
Last edited by gkelly; 05-30-2013 at 07:26 PM.
* That could be a fun study to conduct - switch the order around and see how it affects the judging. Maybe the best way to go would be to have each judge get a different random order for each skater, to ensure that no one component is weighed too much compared to the others.
I would like to suggest Virtue and Moir did really well with their CD's. In their early years in Seniors they certainly got better marks than a lot of more seasoned skaters who had skated under 6.0
Ando under 6.0 was not at her peak, her peak year was 2007. If Ando skated like she did in 2007 under the 6.0 system, she would have won gold in 2000 and 2001. Ando skated at Worlds in 2004 with fairly mediocre presentation (many people liked her SP, but I don't think it compares to Scheherezade which was a great SP for her) but still got ok presentation marks. Not as high as Kwan, Arakawa, or Cohen's, but enough to keep her in medal contention. Imagine if she skated in 2004 with her 2007 programs and improvements. She would be 2nd in both the short and long, given her difficult combinations, improved presentation, and clean skates.
Also keep in mind that Ando would have won 2007 Worlds if the competition was done under 6.0 (but of course not 2011).
In Flatt's case, one example where she is at a disadvantage under CoP is that she gets lower TES than Nagasu at the Vancouver SP even though she did a 3-3 (but somehow Flatt gets higher PCS than Nagasu across all categories ). Nagasu's high GOEs for spins and spirals put her ahead of Flatt, but this probably wouldn't happen under 6.0. They'd probably be close in marks under 6.0 but Nagasu would have higher presentation marks and vice versa.
I disagree that boring 'Flatt' skating is punished under 6.0. Remember Volchkova?
Zhang, Nagasu, and Nakano's jumping issues would be punished under 6.0, but not under the same extent as CoP. Remember Caroline getting 7th at the 2009 Skate Canada SP for a clean skate other than URs? She landed a triple-triple (albeit URed), and although she would get punished under 6.0, it won't be enough to place her 7th with a difficult triple-triple. That's why Sarah Hughes was a medal contender under 6.0, but wouldn't be in CoP.
Anyway lets just say hypothetically you are right. 2007 Worlds is only one Worlds she ever skated that well at Worlds or Olympics with well done triple lutz-triple loops and somewhat competent presentation combined (which you seem to concede), so even if she would have won a Worlds in a 6.0 year with that (I have no idea why you randomly chose 2000 and 2001 when there were many years the winning performance was weaker than those but anyway) that would leave her with only 1 World title under 6.0 vs the two she won under COP, so still being less successful, not more.
She didnt get high presentation marks, especialy in the long. Mostly all 5.6s and as low as 5.4 and this was at a farcial high scoring Worlds where Kwan got mostly 6.0s for presentation which she couldnt even get as many (or sometimes any) with much greater skates at the 1996, 2000, 2001, and even 2003 Worlds; where Kostner falling all over the place got a 5.9 for technical merit, where Suguri not even in the final flight with a sosoish skate got 5.9s for presntation.... Also atleast in hindsight given that Cohen did such a poor free skate, Kwan did only 5 triples in her long, and Ando skating perfectly other than the doubled planned quad and every judge except one still had Ando 4th, she wasnt really in medal contention there despite being 3rd in the short.Ando skated at Worlds in 2004 with fairly mediocre presentation (many people liked her SP, but I don't think it compares to Scheherezade which was a great SP for her) but still got ok presentation marks.
She wouldnt have won the 2007 Worlds under 6.0 IMO as I already mentioned. First off have you forgotten she didnt win either the short or long program, and she was well beaten in both. Yet under COP 2nd in both the short and long was good enough to win. This would have been hugely unlikely under 6.0, can you think of a single World Champion who didnt win either program. She also would not have won either program under 6.0 either, Kim would have easily won the short even under 6.0 and Asada the long. Yes that all said if the placings remained the same she would have won by the factored points system assuming there was no Q round, but as I said I doubt Ando would have been placed over Kostners short under 6.0, nor Ando behind Meissner.Also keep in mind that Ando would have won 2007 Worlds if the competition was done under 6.0 (but of course not 2011).
You concede she wouldnt have won under 2011 under 6.0 though, so even if you are right on 2007 that means she is already doing worse under 6.0, not better, as she is now a 1 time (at most) World Champion, and not 2 times.
Nagasu would have beaten Flatt in Vancouver under 6.0 for sure. They would have been close in the short and Nagasu easily coming out ahead in the long. Basically same as it was under COP. You were talking about Flatt winning World medals though, and which year would this have ever happened under 6.0. The only year she even reached a somewhat high level of skating in World competition was the 2009 Worlds and 2010 Olympics and the field and the caliber of skates were way too high for her to medal either year.In Flatt's case, one example where she is at a disadvantage under CoP is that she gets lower TES than Nagasu at the Vancouver SP even though she did a 3-3 (but somehow Flatt gets higher PCS than Nagasu across all categories ). Nagasu's high GOEs for spins and spirals put her ahead of Flatt, but this probably wouldn't happen under 6.0. They'd probably be close in marks under 6.0 but Nagasu would have higher presentation marks and vice versa.
Where are Volchkovas World medals. Her best Worlds result is 5th. At the 2001 and 2003 Worlds she skated extremely well and still didnt come close to medalling. Even Sokolova was allowed to win a World silver in the same era. Volchkova only proves my point judges are not impressed with slow and boring skating under 6.0, and Flatt isnt near the quality of jumper Volchkova is even when she was doing the 3-3s.I disagree that boring 'Flatt' skating is punished under 6.0. Remember Volchkova?
In 2007, Ando would have won gold even if she placed 2nd in both portions of the competition. Asada would've been 5th in the short and 1st in the long (and even then under 6.0 there would be justifications to put Ando first in the long), and Ando would still win. I don't see how Asada's popped combination will put her ahead of Kim, Ando, Kostner, and Meisnner, who all landed difficult triple-triples. Ando's presentation in 2007 was actually decent (IMO almost on par with Slutskaya) and would probably receive at least 5.7s. In contrast, her 2004 long presentation was markedly inferior, so that isn't a good example of her peak.
In 2000, Ando's 2007 Worlds SP is probably enough to 1st since she had a solid 3-3 and decent presentation (meaning Kwan is bumped to 4th). Her long would place 1st or 2nd. I have a hard time imagining Kwan decisively winning over Ando's 2007 LP when she got 5.6s for technical merit for a perfect 7-triple program. Same in 2001, except it's harder to say because Kwan would have been 3rd in the SP under such a situation. I'm disregarding the QR since that brings in too many variables.
Regardless, in 2007 Ando won because Asada and Kim screwed up. If Asada and Kim made less mistakes or more minor mistakes, they would win over Ando, regardless of the judging system. It also doesn't make sense to compare 2004 Ando to 2007 Ando when IMO there was a big difference in her presentation, spins, and spiral improvements.
I forgot how Volchkova skated in 2001, but Volchkova's performances in 2003 were hardly impressive. She landed 5 triples in the LP, which is good but not lights out. 2003 was also a very weak year regarding the top ladies.
Sokolova won in the era because she could suddenly land a consistent 3lutz-3toe at Worlds. Volchkova had no major advantage while competing - no 3-3s, no outstanding presentation.
I also fail to see how Flatt will place 7th if Vancouver was judged under 6.0. There is no way Lepisto, with her lack of hard triple jumps, will place high above Flatt. Maybe not even Ando, who didn't do a 3-3 in the long.
I also have a hard time imagining Sarah Hughes medaling under 6.0, but not Rachael.
Last edited by shady82; 05-31-2013 at 01:40 AM.
Singling the 2nd jump of a combination was only a .2 deduction by the latter years of 6.0. With only that as a deduction and with an otherwise beautiful performance, on home ice, and the heavy pre event favorite, Mao would easily be placed over Meissner (especialy as Meissner would never be the reigning World Champ had the 06 Worlds been under 6.0 anyway) and could even have been placed in the top 3, but atleast 4th. I definitely believe Ando would probably have been placed behind Kostner's gorgeous short program with had a clean 3-3 under 6.0 as well. Either way I dont see them 3 spots apart.
Like I said name a single year in the post figures years where a skater won neither the SP and LP and still won the gold under 6.0. It just would never happen.
The only reason Kwan got some 5.6s was reigning World Champion Maria Butyrskaya and reigning Grand Prix Final and European Champion Irina Slutskaya, who were both ahead of her after the short, were yet to skate. The judges also adore Slutskaya, and while they dont adore Maria they respect her artistry and complete skating. 2007 Worlds Ando hypothetically speaking would be a skater who had never won a World medal and was no way favored going into the event (she wasnt in anyway favored despite a good season going into the 07 Worlds as it was, and wouldnt have been in 2000 either), so in her case the judges would not have bothered to "leave room" for her after Kwan skated a clean 7 triple program with a 3-3.In 2000, Ando's 2007 Worlds SP is probably enough to 1st since she had a solid 3-3 and decent presentation (meaning Kwan is bumped to 4th). Her long would place 1st or 2nd. I have a hard time imagining Kwan decisively winning over Ando's 2007 LP when she got 5.6s for technical merit for a perfect 7-triple program.
Maria's short program at the 2000 Worlds was stunning and got several 5.9s technically and almost all 5.9s on the 2nd mark. Ando would not beat her in the short even with a 3-3, unless you think she was going to pull some 6.0s for elements (no) or alot of 5.9s for presentation (definite no).
All of Irina's technical elements apart from a 3-3 are stronger than Ando's in the short. Her spins are way better, her footwork too, her spiral sequence is weak compared to Kwan's but much better than Ando's sorry excuse of one, and her double axel is much better, and her triple jump out of footwork usually has better steps into it and rythym than Ando has. Again IMO no way Ando is winning the short over Irina.Same in 2001, except it's harder to say because Kwan would have been 3rd in the SP under such a situation. I'm disregarding the QR since that brings in too many variables.
Why are you even using 2000 and 2001 as your random years. If you want to show Ando winning a World title with her 2007 performances under 6.0 why not choose 1997, 1998, 2002, 2006, 1995, even 2003 or 1996 instead. She would have had a better shot winning all those years than she would have in 2000 or 2001, and in fact I would agree she would win the Worlds many of those years with her 2007 performances, even under 6.0. I just find it funny you chose maybe the 2 strongest performances to win Worlds under 6.0 in its last decade as your two choices for some reason.
Agreed but is already pretty clear we are relegated to arguing whether Ando could have won only 1 of her 2 World titles in "some" years under 6.0. So if the best we can argue her doing under 6.0 is to win 1 World title, and what she achieved under COP was winning 2, how on earth would she have done better under 6.0 than COP which is what you originally stated.Regardless, in 2007 Ando won because Asada and Kim screwed up. If Asada and Kim made less mistakes or more minor mistakes, they would win over Ando, regardless of the judging system. It also doesn't make sense to compare 2004 Ando to 2007 Ando when IMO there was a big difference in her presentation, spins, and spiral improvements.
Somewhat true in 2003 but she still landed more triples and much better triples than Suguri did, and Suguri hardly has impressive extensions, or super polished skating, and she still wasnt even close to beating her for the bronze. I am not arguing whether she deserved a medal, I am just completely disagreeing the insinuation the judges really liked Volchkova's skating and considered her a medal caliber skater under 6.0. Clearly they did not, and they wouldnt have Flatt either.I forgot how Volchkova skated in 2001, but Volchkova's performances in 2003 were hardly impressive. She landed 5 triples in the LP, which is good but not lights out. 2003 was also a very weak year regarding the top ladies.
Meanwhile in 2001 she landed 7 clean triples in the long including a 3-3, and even with a slighty shaking landing or two a much better jumping display Flatt could ever produce considering the vast disparity in the quality of their jumps, and still came only 6th.
Oh please, Lepisto landed 5 triples in the short and considering her presentation is eons above Flatt she would likely be placed over Flatt in the LP, probably with atleast one skater in between them. Lepisto doubled a jump in the short but 2 of Flatt's 3 jump elements were not really clean in the SP, and considering she didnt get a < as she probably should have, would have probably been hit harder under 6.0 for their shakiness under 6.0 than she was under COP.I also fail to see how Flatt will place 7th if Vancouver was judged under 6.0. There is no way Lepisto, with her lack of hard triple jumps, will place high above Flatt. Maybe not even Ando, who didn't do a 3-3 in the long.
Ando based on reputation alone would probably be put ahead since she stayed on her feet, and as you noted even her UR and rather poorish triple lutz-triple loop in the short would be credited by the judges under 6.0, especialy as a former (or atleast you are completely convinced of this) World Champion.
Anyway arguing Flatt might have come 5th or 6th at one competition she was 7th is a far cry from your original argument was that she would be winning World medals under 6.0.
Ummm Hughes won the Olympics under 6.0. She was a much better 6.0 skater than Flatt would have ever been. Hughes though would have been a horrible COP skater, and far below even people like Flatt in COP.I also have a hard time imagining Sarah Hughes medaling under 6.0, but not Rachael.
About Lu Chen- I do think the Chen on 91-94 could have done well under COP. I do think she could have won the 93 worlds and 94 Olympics, and placed second at 92 worlds. I don't think she would have won in 95 or beat Kwan in 96 mainly because of her spins, but early on, she was a better spinner.
What about Mishkutenok & Dmitriev? They could have used her flexibility to rack up all sorts of extra points (not necessarily to any aesthetic benefit, IMO, but for points for sure).